Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 20STCV42456, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling

While we remain under various emergency orders during the Covid-19 pandemic, all parties and counsel are encouraged to appear remotely on all civil matters.

If the interested parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling, they should call the judicial assistant together prior to the date of the scheduled hearing.

Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel v. Luther Linton, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Brandi Linton and Pecorelli Enterprises

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel filed this action against Defendants Brandi Linton, Luther Linton, and Pecorelli Enterprises, alleging violations of the Immigration Consultant Act. Defendant Luther Linton was dismissed on August 13, 2021.

After a bench trial on March 7 and 8, 2022, the court issued an informal statement of decision on April 7, 2022, finding in favor of Plaintiff. Judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendants was entered on April 29, 2022. The court permanently enjoined Defendants from violating the Immigration Consultants Act for a period of ten years.

Defendants now move to tax the postjudgment Memoranda of Costs filed by Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel on June 18, 2024. Plaintiff opposed.

Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed two Memoranda of Costs On Appeal seeking identical costs of $545.70. One is directed to Defendant Pecorelli Enterprises, the other to Defendant Brandi Linton. On July 8, 2024, Defendants moved to tax costs.

In support of the motion to tax, Defendants argue that by filing two tax memoranda, Plaintiff is improperly seeking duplicative costs against each Defendant. Plaintiff counters that it is not seeking double costs from each Defendant. Rather, “the two memoranda reflect a single item of $545.70 to be paid jointly and severally by the Appellants, and not an award of two times $545.70.” (Opp. 4: 7-9.)

By this Ruling, the court confirms (or clarifies as necessary) that Plaintiff is entitled to recover a total of $545.70 in costs from the Defendants, jointly and severally.

Second, Defendants argue Plaintiff has not adequately broken down the costs. However, there is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum. Only if the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of the propriety of the costs included therein, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. (See Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776; see also Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1486.) Therefore, Defendants have failed to properly put the costs “at issue” in their motion to tax. (See Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266 [mere statements in points and authorities and declaration of counsel insufficient to rebut prima facie showing].)

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.

Dated: December 26, 2024 ___________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.